Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Re: Now That John Logan Has Proven Himself, What Went Wrong With Nemes

AllStarEntprise wrote:

DarKush wrote:

AllStarEntprise wrote:

Sorry that should've read " Shinzon's motivations should've been the genocidal destruction of Romulus based on his background." I edited to reflect it. Well Shinzon says the echo triumphing over the voice was a goal for him. Legitimizing his existence by destroying Picard. Forging his own legacy and erasing everything Picard stood for. If Earth and the Federation were destroyed then everything Picard did, all the treaties, discoveries and battles he won become annulled since no one will remember him.

Couldn't Shinzon just as easily eclipsed Picard by destroying Romulus? The Federation's greatest enemy, wouldn't that have made his life more consequential, in his eyes?

I can get the whole one upping Picard thing that Shinzon says he wants to do, but it just felt a bit too overdone, hackneyed, convoluted or something. It felt like they had to take extra steps that they really didn't need to, to make Shiznon hate the Federation. It made more sense to me that Shinzon would hate the Romulans and want to eradicate them.

If that had been the case, we could've had Picard and company willing to sacrifice all to save Romulus, a reversal of what Donatra did, and that could've been a major moment in Federation-Romulan relations, on par with the events in Star Trek 6. Instead we got another tired Earth is in peril story.

I also disagree with what Christopher said early on about Shinzon and Picard's strong relationship. I think Khan and Kirk worked far better as adversaries because of their history. Picard and Shinzon had no history, so we could never get a great moment like when Khan first appears on the Enterprise viewscreen in Star Trek 2.

The line between paying homage and ripping off would be to blatant if they ended the TNG saga the same way they ended the TOS saga.

The biggest difference between Shinzon and his clone Nero is that Shinzon's motives are the result of conditioning and desire. Sure wiping out Romulus would also make him a legend but for what? He doesn't believe in the Federation or it's values. Hell Picard, Sisko and Janeway throw the Fed's values out the window every so often. Having Shinzon become some sort of tool good guy would've been lame. As lame as Darth Vader becoming a good guy in the eleventh hour of ROTJ. Shinzon has all the potential to be a great man like Picard, and Picard tells him that. But Shinzon can't change the man he's become. The Romulans willingly and unwillingly created a Picard in their own image where unlimited expansion is his primary goal. The Dominion campaigns sharpened him in to a fierce warrior and life in the Reman mines hardened his soul.

Compare to Nero who had a shitty day when his planet was blown up. Despite it being pretty much telegraphed that Romulus was in danger Nero did nothing to save his loved ones. Then he went on an indiscriminate killing spree against people who couldn't defend themselves. Using technology from 125-150 years in the future is what i'm referring too. Thing about it is when Nero is talking to Pike he equates destroying the Federation worlds will secure Romulus' future. How? Destroying the sun or warning the Romulans of that era would've secured Romulus' future.

With Kirk and Khan, idk I feel the dynamic could've been stronger. A face to face confrontation would've been nice. Constant rewatches of TWOK have me equating their conversation and subsequent battles as "Epic Penis Showing Contests in Space via Skype Video Chat". The battle and conversations between Chang and Kirk in ST VI i feel is way better because they both got to meet and size eachother up under the pretense of peace. When we the audience knows at that point in the film neither one of them would object to a full scale war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. But by the end of the movie that's changed. Kirk is fighting for peace and Chang is fighting for war. Two warriors, two ships one destiny.

I would have rather had NEM ripping of Undiscovered Country than ripping off TWOK, which is what they did to disappointing results. At least if they had ripped off Star Trek 6 we could've seen another major historical Trek moment on screen and it would've served as a far more fitting 'final' mission, by making peace with arguably TNG's second biggest adversaries (got to put the Borg first).

I think you did a good job of explaining how Shinzon was shaped, but it doesn't take away the fact that he had no beef with the Federation. So what he didn't share their values? The more emotional, visceral beef he had was with the people that had enslaved him. And though he wiped out the Senate and had some of the military supporting him, there was no way he could rest on his laurels. If the movie had been logical, there would have been some discussion at least about the fall out of his attack and the need for him to solidify his support on Romulus and within the Empire.

I'm not sure that expansion was or should've have been his goal. I liked the conversation that Shinzon had with Picard and how he talked about how everything he was doing was for the Reman people, to ensure their freedom. How exactly do you do that by attacking the Federation?

Shinzon was a poor attempt to make a Khan on the cheap while using the Romulans because of the fan interest. I wanted to like the character. I did like Tom Hardy's performance, but how he came to power and what he did with that power didn't make much sense for me.

Further, why would the Remans want to destroy the Federation? They really had no beef with them, and since the Federation was opposed to the Romulans, could possibly see them as allies. Granted there might be anger that the Federation never helped them but still, I don't think this anger would compare to the very people who had enslaved them for centuries.

Regarding Nero, I think you are being unfair to him. Granted his portrayal wasn't great-either in the acting or writing department-but still. He had more than a shitty day. He lost his homeworld, his wife, and his child. And I could see him more easily blaming this on Spock more so than Shinzon blaming his situation on Picard. And so Shinzon took away from Spock what he felt Spock took away from him. Where I think Nero drops the ball is not telling Romulus about the Hobus supernova once he goes back to the past. I know he was supposed to be in a Klingon prison-but that was not shown on screen-and even if it were, he couldn't have stopped over by Romulus or sent them a message before he attacked the Federation? So I agree with you that Nero's reasoning about securing Romulus's future by attacking the Federation made no sense, but I still think his vendetta against Spock was more logical than Shinzon wanting to wipe out Earth.

Regarding Kirk v. Khan, I'm fine with what we got, because both actors sold it. And when I got to see "Space Seed", which I did after watching TWOK, it added more perspective. Absent seeing that movie though, I think the way they did it in the film was fine. Another Kirk/Khan fight might have been nice, but I would rather them not come up with some improbable way for Kirk to win or escape, because I think Khan would've ripped him limb from limb. I also liked Kirk and Chang. I think Chang is often overlooked as a Trek villain. He was one of my favorites.

Re: Now That John Logan Has Proven Himself, What Went Wrong With Nemes

DarKush wrote:

AllStarEntprise wrote:

DarKush wrote:

Couldn't Shinzon just as easily eclipsed Picard by destroying Romulus? The Federation's greatest enemy, wouldn't that have made his life more consequential, in his eyes?

I can get the whole one upping Picard thing that Shinzon says he wants to do, but it just felt a bit too overdone, hackneyed, convoluted or something. It felt like they had to take extra steps that they really didn't need to, to make Shiznon hate the Federation. It made more sense to me that Shinzon would hate the Romulans and want to eradicate them.

If that had been the case, we could've had Picard and company willing to sacrifice all to save Romulus, a reversal of what Donatra did, and that could've been a major moment in Federation-Romulan relations, on par with the events in Star Trek 6. Instead we got another tired Earth is in peril story.

I also disagree with what Christopher said early on about Shinzon and Picard's strong relationship. I think Khan and Kirk worked far better as adversaries because of their history. Picard and Shinzon had no history, so we could never get a great moment like when Khan first appears on the Enterprise viewscreen in Star Trek 2.

The line between paying homage and ripping off would be to blatant if they ended the TNG saga the same way they ended the TOS saga.

The biggest difference between Shinzon and his clone Nero is that Shinzon's motives are the result of conditioning and desire. Sure wiping out Romulus would also make him a legend but for what? He doesn't believe in the Federation or it's values. Hell Picard, Sisko and Janeway throw the Fed's values out the window every so often. Having Shinzon become some sort of tool good guy would've been lame. As lame as Darth Vader becoming a good guy in the eleventh hour of ROTJ. Shinzon has all the potential to be a great man like Picard, and Picard tells him that. But Shinzon can't change the man he's become. The Romulans willingly and unwillingly created a Picard in their own image where unlimited expansion is his primary goal. The Dominion campaigns sharpened him in to a fierce warrior and life in the Reman mines hardened his soul.

Compare to Nero who had a shitty day when his planet was blown up. Despite it being pretty much telegraphed that Romulus was in danger Nero did nothing to save his loved ones. Then he went on an indiscriminate killing spree against people who couldn't defend themselves. Using technology from 125-150 years in the future is what i'm referring too. Thing about it is when Nero is talking to Pike he equates destroying the Federation worlds will secure Romulus' future. How? Destroying the sun or warning the Romulans of that era would've secured Romulus' future.

With Kirk and Khan, idk I feel the dynamic could've been stronger. A face to face confrontation would've been nice. Constant rewatches of TWOK have me equating their conversation and subsequent battles as "Epic Penis Showing Contests in Space via Skype Video Chat". The battle and conversations between Chang and Kirk in ST VI i feel is way better because they both got to meet and size eachother up under the pretense of peace. When we the audience knows at that point in the film neither one of them would object to a full scale war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. But by the end of the movie that's changed. Kirk is fighting for peace and Chang is fighting for war. Two warriors, two ships one destiny.

I would have rather had NEM ripping of Undiscovered Country than ripping off TWOK, which is what they did to disappointing results. At least if they had ripped off Star Trek 6 we could've seen another major historical Trek moment on screen and it would've served as a far more fitting 'final' mission, by making peace with arguably TNG's second biggest adversaries (got to put the Borg first).

I think you did a good job of explaining how Shinzon was shaped, but it doesn't take away the fact that he had no beef with the Federation. So what he didn't share their values? The more emotional, visceral beef he had was with the people that had enslaved him. And though he wiped out the Senate and had some of the military supporting him, there was no way he could rest on his laurels. If the movie had been logical, there would have been some discussion at least about the fall out of his attack and the need for him to solidify his support on Romulus and within the Empire.

I'm not sure that expansion was or should've have been his goal. I liked the conversation that Shinzon had with Picard and how he talked about how everything he was doing was for the Reman people, to ensure their freedom. How exactly do you do that by attacking the Federation?

Shinzon was a poor attempt to make a Khan on the cheap while using the Romulans because of the fan interest. I wanted to like the character. I did like Tom Hardy's performance, but how he came to power and what he did with that power didn't make much sense for me.

Further, why would the Remans want to destroy the Federation? They really had no beef with them, and since the Federation was opposed to the Romulans, could possibly see them as allies. Granted there might be anger that the Federation never helped them but still, I don't think this anger would compare to the very people who had enslaved them for centuries.

Regarding Nero, I think you are being unfair to him. Granted his portrayal wasn't great-either in the acting or writing department-but still. He had more than a shitty day. He lost his homeworld, his wife, and his child. And I could see him more easily blaming this on Spock more so than Shinzon blaming his situation on Picard. And so Shinzon took away from Spock what he felt Spock took away from him. Where I think Nero drops the ball is not telling Romulus about the Hobus supernova once he goes back to the past. I know he was supposed to be in a Klingon prison-but that was not shown on screen-and even if it were, he couldn't have stopped over by Romulus or sent them a message before he attacked the Federation? So I agree with you that Nero's reasoning about securing Romulus's future by attacking the Federation made no sense, but I still think his vendetta against Spock was more logical than Shinzon wanting to wipe out Earth.

Regarding Kirk v. Khan, I'm fine with what we got, because both actors sold it. And when I got to see "Space Seed", which I did after watching TWOK, it added more perspective. Absent seeing that movie though, I think the way they did it in the film was fine. Another Kirk/Khan fight might have been nice, but I would rather them not come up with some improbable way for Kirk to win or escape, because I think Khan would've ripped him limb from limb. I also liked Kirk and Chang. I think Chang is often overlooked as a Trek villain. He was one of my favorites.

How is Nero's vendetta against Spock in ANY way logical? The supernova was a natural event, and Spock was doing his genuine best to help the Romulans and he only failed by being too late.

It's like trying to get revenge on a firefighter who was racing to your home to put out a fire, but he was just a little late.

Re: Now That John Logan Has Proven Himself, What Went Wrong With Nemes

I absolutely hate to admit this, but Nemesis has actually started to grow on me and I think it's aging far better than any of the other TNG films. While it is a major swing-and-miss, it actually tries to be about "something". That "something" being sibling rivalry and its something far easier to relate to than pretty white people being evicted.

Re: Now That John Logan Has Proven Himself, What Went Wrong With Nemes

BillJ wrote:

That "something" being sibling rivalry and its something far easier to relate to than pretty white people being evicted.

Completely agreed as to "pretty white people." Siblings I don't see. A clone and a chip-challenged eary model are not siblings, and they can't compare to TNG's very fine "Brothers." That theme in NEM is invisible to me.

Re: Now That John Logan Has Proven Himself, What Went Wrong With Nemes

M'rk, son of Mogh wrote:

Sci wrote:

How many more times do I have to repeat myself?

Shinzon's motivations are all about Reman nationalism: He wants to liberate the Remans and is against the Romulans.

Keep repeating yourself, it doesn't change what we all see in the movie.

You are correct. Shinzon's motivations were about liberating the Remans and opposing the Romulans. That part of the story still occured, it was the opening scene.

He succeeded. He won.

Don't be ridiculous. He overthrew the Preator, but that just meant that someone else might overthrow him. Installing himself as Praetor made him dependent on the Imperial Fleet for their support, and that meant that the liberation of the Remans was still a work in progress at best. Saying that his taking the Praetorship meant that he'd "won" is as ridiculous as saying that African Americans aren't still oppressed just because the President is black.

That's why it makes no sense that he'd suddenly fixate on Earth: There's no indication earlier in the film that he gives a damn about Earth, and no reason for him to care about Earth when the liberation of the Remans wasn't done yet.

Re: Now That John Logan Has Proven Himself, What Went Wrong With Nemes

When was the last time you watched the film? Most of your inquires and grievances can be cleared up by a viewing of the film. Pay attention especially to the conversation Picard and Shinzon have about their true nature and shared attributes.

Re: Now That John Logan Has Proven Himself, What Went Wrong With Nemes

Sci wrote:

Saying that his taking the Praetorship meant that he'd "won" is as ridiculous as saying that African Americans aren't still oppressed just because the President is black.

Why would anybody compare that? Shinzon is closer to a dictator than an elected official. Now you're just reaching since simply saying "I have a blind hatred and that's that" is tougher to admit.

It's really quite simple from a storytelling perspective (and also fictional, the politics of Star Trek have never been close to realistic, maybe that's what makes it difficult for some people? That whole FICTION thing? I dunno).

Re: Now That John Logan Has Proven Himself, What Went Wrong With Nemes

AllStarEntprise wrote:

Most of your inquires and grievances can be cleared up by a viewing of the film. Pay attention especially to the conversation Picard and Shinzon have about their true nature and shared attributes.

I welcome a specific quote that addresses my arguments.

M'rk, son of Mogh wrote:

Sci wrote:

Saying that his taking the Praetorship meant that he'd "won" is as ridiculous as saying that African Americans aren't still oppressed just because the President is black.

Why would anybody compare that? Shinzon is closer to a dictator than an elected official. Now you're just reaching since simply saying "I have a blind hatred and that's that" is tougher to admit.

No. I am making a comparison between one society being led by a member of an oppressed community, and another.

It's really quite simple from a storytelling perspective (and also fictional, the politics of Star Trek have never been close to realistic, maybe that's what makes it difficult for some people? That whole FICTION thing? I dunno).

Randomly insulting your debate opponents by claiming they don't understand the concept of fiction or suspension of disbelief does not actually advance your argument.

Re: Now That John Logan Has Proven Himself, What Went Wrong With Nemes

Sci wrote:

AllStarEntprise wrote:

Most of your inquires and grievances can be cleared up by a viewing of the film. Pay attention especially to the conversation Picard and Shinzon have about their true nature and shared attributes.

I welcome a specific quote that addresses my arguments.

M'rk, son of Mogh wrote:

Why would anybody compare that? Shinzon is closer to a dictator than an elected official. Now you're just reaching since simply saying "I have a blind hatred and that's that" is tougher to admit.

No. I am making a comparison between one society being led by a member of an oppressed community, and another.

It's really quite simple from a storytelling perspective (and also fictional, the politics of Star Trek have never been close to realistic, maybe that's what makes it difficult for some people? That whole FICTION thing? I dunno).

Randomly insulting your debate opponents by claiming they don't understand the concept of fiction or suspension of disbelief does not actually advance your argument.

but the comparison is invalid. Obama is an elected president who has term limits, so... yeah, it's a given that he'll have to rotate from power. But like the other guy said, Shinzon is a dictator who relies on military power and the allegiance of the Remans. Again, Shinzon won his battle with the Romulan government in the first scene of the movie.(combined with some back-door deals beforehand of course) WHY would Shinzon have "made a move" against the Romulans when he already had what he wanted from them?

It sounds like your criticism is "but I wanted a totally different movie." And that's certainly a valid sentiment, but it's not really a criticism of the movie.